Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.

holding that even a large percentage of a corporation's purchases in the forum state is not sufficient to justify general jurisdiction | holding that even a large percentage of a corporation’s purchases in the forum state is not sufficient to justify general jurisdiction | concluding that no jurisdiction existed over a defendant that frequently entered the forum merely to purchase goods | concluding that no jurisdiction existed over a defendant that frequently entered the forum merely to purchase goods | holding that defendant corporation’s visits to forum to purchase merchandise, “even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the [forum] State” | finding that a clothing retailer in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who purchased a substantial portion of its merchandise from New York wholesalers to sell in its Tulsa store was not subject to jurisdiction in New York | finding no jurisdiction where defendant’s contacts with state consisted of periodic purchases of large quantities of its retail stock from firms in the forum state and regular business trips to the forum state in connection to those purchases | discussing Rosenberg Bros., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372 | the corporation's contacts with the forum "would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the State" | "The sole question for decision is whether . . . defendant was doing business within the State of New York in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it was present there" | “The sole question for decision is whether . . . defendant was doing business within the State of New York in such manner and to such extent as to warrant the inference that it was present there” | “The order entered below, although in form an order to quash the summons, and not a dismissal of the suit, is a final judgment, and the case is properly here.” | "The order entered below, although in form an order to quash the summons, and not a dismissal of the suit, is a final judgment, and the case is properly here." | “Visits on such business [purchasing activity], even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the state.” | “Visits [by a foreign corporation to purchase merchandise], even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the State.”